Brief introduction of the case
Li Jia was criminally detained by a district branch of Hangzhou Public Security Bureau in pingnan county, Fujian Province on June 5438+1October 65438+September 2006, and was arrested according to law with the approval of a district people's procuratorate in Hangzhou on February 22 of the same year. After the investigation of a district branch of Hangzhou Public Security Bureau ended, the case was transferred to the People's Procuratorate of a district of Hangzhou for review and prosecution on April 22, 2006, and returned to the supplementary investigation on May 22 of the same year. After supplementary investigation, it was re-transferred for review and prosecution on June 22 of the same year, and returned for supplementary investigation for the second time on July 2 1. The public security organ transferred it for review and prosecution again on August 2 1 of the same year. On September 2 1 of the same year, the people's procuratorate of a district in Hangzhou extended the examination period by half a month, and filed a public prosecution with the people's court of a district in Hangzhou on September 29, 2006. The public prosecution agency accused Li Jia, Li Yi and "Brother C" (all handled separately) of preparing to forge car number plates, driver's licenses and driving licenses in late October of 2005. And drove Chunlan truck to Hangzhou to help people deliver goods and commit fraud. 165438+1On October 28th, Li Yi and "Brother C" went out to look for the crime target, while Li Jia waited at the hotel. Later, Li Yi signed a cargo transportation contract with the stall owner of Shida Road Freight Market 135 under the pseudonym of "Lin", and the transportation destination was Ruian City, Zhejiang Province. On the same day, Li Yi and "Brother C" loaded 30 tons of high-pressure polyethylene (worth 307,500 yuan) into the truck according to the contract. On the way, they changed the forged car license plate and got on Li Jia's car. The three men drove to Fujian to sell stolen goods.
On June 23, 2006, a district people's court in Hangzhou held a public hearing to hear the case. Defenders analyzed the relationship between evidences, the evidence system and whether the object of proof can be established from the perspective of criminal evidence law. Combined with the standard of proof of criminal cases, they debated the fraud in this case accused by the public prosecution agency from the aspects of unclear quantity of fraudulent items, uncertain identity of the perpetrator, uncertain tools of committing crimes, uncertain time of committing crimes, and no connection between the criminal object and the defendant Li Jia. In the end, I think the facts of this case are unclear and the evidence is insufficient, so the accusation against Li Jia cannot be established. Regrettably, the collegial panel did not adopt the defense opinions of the defenders, and made the criminal judgment No.408 (2006) on June165438+1October 4, 2006, and concluded: "The defendant Li Jia and others defrauded the other party's property for the purpose of illegal possession, and the amount was extremely huge. The charges charged by the public prosecution agency were established. Li Jia, the defendant, argued that she was only hired to drive and didn't know it was fraud, which was inconsistent with the facts ascertained by our hospital and was not adopted. At the same time, the defense opinions of his defenders are also inconsistent with the facts ascertained by the court and will not be adopted. " The verdict is as follows: Defendant Li Jia was convicted of contract fraud, sentenced to 11 years in prison and fined 65,438 yuan. Deprived of political rights for two years. After the first-instance judgment of this case was made, Li Jia was quite depressed and had no confidence in the future. However, the defender believes that there are major flaws in the evidence in this case, and there is hope as long as the appeal is made, otherwise the judgment of the first instance can only be accepted. After careful consideration, the defender accepted the entrustment, and after meeting with Li Jia again and obtaining the consent, he appealed to the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court.
After the appeal, the defender explained the defense viewpoint of this case in detail to the presiding judge of the Intermediate People's Court in time, and questioned the facts ascertained by the court of first instance. The defender's persistence and efforts were not in vain. The defender's defense viewpoint attracted the attention of the presiding judge, and the collegial panel decided to hold a hearing on the case. On March 7, 2007, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court heard the case. After a heated debate between the defender and the prosecution on facts and evidence, the defender's point of view was recognized by the court. On March 20, 2007, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a criminal ruling (2007) No.6. The ruling found: "The court believes that the original judgment found that the defendant Li Jia was guilty of contract fraud according to the confession of the defendant Li Jia and the statements of the victims Chen Moumou and Wu Chengzhong, with unclear facts and insufficient evidence. The relevant defense opinions of the appellant (the defendant in the original trial) Li Jia and his defender with unclear facts and insufficient evidence were adopted. " The criminal judgment No.408 (2006) was revoked and sent back for retrial. After the case was returned to a district people's court in Hangzhou, a district people's procuratorate in Hangzhou withdrew the prosecution. Angel lee is free again.
Focus of controversy
1. Is this case committed by Li Yi and others? 2. Is Li Jia guilty of contract fraud?